%% Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> %.ui : %.sig >> @[ -f $@ ] && mv $@ $@.old >> mosmlc -c $< >> @cmp -s $@ $@.old && mv $@.old $@
hm> Hm (checks it..) it works. Amazing. Where should I have looked for hm> that behavior in the documentation? I don't think it's explicitly documented in the GNU make manual. However, (a) every make has always behaved this way, so it's probably documented in other make manuals, and (b) it's inferable from other descriptions: the manual says that the target is built based on comparing it to the mod time of each of its prerequisites, so if the prerequisite's mod time doesn't change (as above where we "unchange" it if the file hasn't changed) then the target won't be rebuilt. hm> (at least sufficient enough to keep me from hacking around in the hm> source for make). :) >> Instead, the fundamental problem should be addressed: the problem >> I'm thinking of is the stateless nature of make. Make needs the >> ability to remember state from previous builds hm> This would be a really good idea - it would probably solve some of hm> my other little itches too - but is not something I can spare the hm> time to attack. The theory here is not difficult, but the implementation details get gross, when you consider recursive invocations of make, possibly in the same directory, the different platforms make supports, etc. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/ "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
